Morale at Blizzard low?

[Deficineiron]

Yeah, I do know it. It was a jab at the poster, but thanks for the course review. It also illustrate the point that Blizzard is fully capable of making things more accessible without Kotick.

actually, now that you bring it up, let me point something interesting out.

2.3 - the 2.3 badge gear, which was more-or-less t5ish gear. iirc a large slot item was 50?? badges, and they introduced daily heroics for bonus badges. kara did not drop badges at this point.
2.4 - the 2.4 badge gear is t6ish ilvl. at some point in 2.4 kara started dropped 22 badges (which killed my nightly heroic runs). a large slot item was *150* badges - this was a LOT of work, or you waited 7 weeks and just ran kara. heroics remained quite capable of wiping groups. even by end bc groups I pugged in mech, for example, never routinely killed serpenthea and saved the attempt for last. the point is - mechanics did not forgive failure.

iirc badge-type gear became much, much faster to obtain in wotlk.

blizz released a new dungeon in 2.4 which was very hard at a t4-5 gear level. some groups wiped repeatedly.

blizzard also reduced bc heroic attunements from faction revered to faction honored at some point.

so by end-bc, a t5 group could go in heroic anything and have a much better chance of wiping than an ilvl 190-200 green/blue group going into heroic anything in 3.0.x lvl 80 (and no attunement required!).

[Osmeric]

Too big a jump in difficulty after people got used to rolling over stuff in Wrath.

I don't think people got used to the lower difficulty in Wrath so much as many were clued in that that was, for them, the appropriate difficulty, or perhaps even still too difficult. So when Cataclysm came along the message they got in no uncertain terms was "the game is not for you", and they rapidly unsubbed.

This is also one reason why WildStar (which shut down for good yesterday) had such anemic sales and retention: most players have been disabused of the notion that hardcore is something that they're going to like.

[Keren]

For me, both raiding and rated pvp should be niche. Grouping should be optional, and not the only path to see good rewards and special endgame content.

you know its a massive multiplayer online game? I don't want to be rude or so, but what you are looking for is a single player rpg, not an mmo like wow. Maybe you're just used to play wow, but the things you want is not the game you play

[Sansnom]

In truth though, Blizzard posted this before Blizzcon, telling everyone to not get their hopes up:
https://us.diablo3.com/en/blog/22549...018-10-17-2018

Ok. Thanks for the correction. I do not following Blizzcon or Blizzard postings. My post was based on the reception they received during the Blizzcon and from people I talk to.

[Deficineiron]

I don't think people got used to the lower difficulty in Wrath so much as many were clued in that that was, for them, the appropriate difficulty, or perhaps even still too difficult. So when Cataclysm came along the message they got in no uncertain terms was "the game is not for you", and they rapidly unsubbed.

This is also one reason why WildStar (which shut down for good yesterday) had such anemic sales and retention: most players have been disabused of the notion that hardcore is something that they're going to like.

deja vu, but my question for you on this topic is how did blizzard even have sub growth, particularly during BC?

hit 70, try a heroic, harder than cataclysm was, net result is sub growth (net) the whole expansion.

cataclysm, try an easier heroic hit 85, quit game?

it seems likely that completely random grouping is a big factor.

also, how could a wotlk heroic be too difficult? you could ignore almost all boss mechanics right out of the gate.

[MoanaLisa]

This is also one reason why WildStar (which shut down for good yesterday) had such anemic sales and retention: most players have been disabused of the notion that hardcore is something that they're going to like.

The pitch about high levels of difficulty has never worked. It runs counter to why most people play video games. To relax and have some fun.

Wildstar pitched pre-sales before launch on more difficulty than WoW and it didn't work. Pre-sales were disappointing. The idea of being difficult wasn't enough.

[Osmeric]

deja vu, but my question for you on this topic is how did blizzard even have sub growth, particularly during BC?.

Even in BC they were still bringing in new players. Many (most?) had never played MMOs before.

Players, especially those for whom WoW was the first MMO, were still grappling with the game. If they had not yet reached their skill cap, how would they know content was beyond them?

But by the time BC was over, players who had been stuck in Kara (or earlier) would be realizing all that end game content had been out of their reach.

It took time for an MMO newbie to calibrate what they would or would not like, what they could or could not do. After Wrath, they mostly knew.

[Soon-TM]

I am still wondering why the management of blizzard thought Diablo III was a failure. It sold 30 million copies.

And it would deserve a new expac.

While D3 may have been a big seller, there is a widespread opinion that vanilla D3 was a disaster, especially with the infamous RMAH being by far the fastest way to get gear upgrades after a while. The drastical changes brought on in RoS made the game at least playable... but the damage had already been done, and the sales figures for RoS showed it.

[Zandalariprelate]

The pitch about high levels of difficulty has never worked. It runs counter to why most people play video games. To relax and have some fun.

Wildstar pitched pre-sales before launch on more difficulty than WoW and it didn't work. Pre-sales were disappointing. The idea of being difficult wasn't enough.

I fully agree with this, difficult games has their own niche like Nioh, Dark souls but you can't reach a big audience because the average players probably will want to play some easy pve game and if they want to play something "hard" they usually play some pvp game like CS GO or Dota 2

[Deficineiron]

It's worth noting as well that back in 2010 Blizzard told us that 70% of players never even made it past level 10. The simple fact is, most people who picked up WoW put it right back down again in no time at all. In those early years of WoW the game was pulling in new people constantly who wanted to try out the hot game that everyone was talking about. Most of those people fairly quickly realized that the game was not for them ... but there was just so many coming in that the numbers always looked great. It was inevitable that the stream of "people who've never tried WoW" was eventually going to dry up and the game would start losing players overall rather than gaining or maintaining.

that level 10 quote is interesting, but it omits some very important elements -

how many of those level 10 and lower accounts were banned? I think this was before the trial to 20 right?

obviously blizzard has had a steady revenue for over a decade from cutout licenses related to yellow-gold selling and other hacks (not blue-gold, which is ok).

- - - Updated - - -

I fully agree with this, difficult games has their own niche like Nioh, Dark souls but you can't reach a big audience because the average players probably will want to play some easy pve game and if they want to play something "hard" they usually play some pvp game like CS GO or Dota 2

Once again, I do disagree in part.

Classic had hard elements. BC had much harder elements (I am thinking of heroics) as far as I can tell which were otherwise even more accessible (to try, not succeed). the games were among the most successful games ever, both in western mmo raw numbers and financially.

I don't know the games you or MoanaLisa mention and have no opinion on them.

- - - Updated - - -

While D3 may have been a big seller, there is a widespread opinion that vanilla D3 was a disaster, especially with the infamous RMAH being by far the fastest way to get gear upgrades after a while. The drastical changes brought on in RoS made the game at least playable... but the damage had already been done, and the sales figures for RoS showed it.

I was amazed at the audacity of RMAH when it was first mentioned - literal pay to win, with blizz getting a cut!

I can understand why a company with a quarterly number to meet wants money.

I can also understand why a player might not want to be in a game-world where things are explicitly for sale for cash in a blizzard-endorsed transaction. having rules against this, banning accounts they catch, and letting the black market handle it seems much more pragmatic (it certainly worked in wow). The Pardo rule definitely applies. Imagine an RMAH for wow - great, right??

blizzard was smart to instead for the 1- or 2-steps removed buy the token for cash, sell it to someone??(or blizz) for gold, buy the gear for gold.

or (as a thought exercise) - imagine every AH had the item price in gold, and below the dollar price based on current token rates, and you could choose to pay in gold or $ right there in AH.

Not good for a player/immersion mindset (maybe great for a farmer), right?

- - - Updated - - -

Even in BC they were still bringing in new players. Many (most?) had never played MMOs before.

Players, especially those for whom WoW was the first MMO, were still grappling with the game. If they had not yet reached their skill cap, how would they know content was beyond them?

But by the time BC was over, players who had been stuck in Kara (or earlier) would be realizing all that end game content had been out of their reach.

It took time for an MMO newbie to calibrate what they would or would not like, what they could or could not do. After Wrath, they mostly knew.

agree on market saturation factor. mostly disagree on the rest but you know that.

would propose an axiom relevant to this topic -

A video game's future patches cannot make the game harder (as in players fail at completing content more frequently than before) without significant pushback from players. The game can be made to take longer, however, as long as appropriate rewards are spaced out to maintain engagement.

so they make leveling harder in 7.3.5- the mobs don't hit harder (I am told), they just take a lot longer to die.

other examples? thoughts?

[Clone]

deja vu, but my question for you on this topic is how did blizzard even have sub growth, particularly during BC?

WoW was still pretty new (for a MMO) then and plenty of people were willing to try it out, but the truth is people were quitting as far back as vanilla. The various TV references also helped get more exposure, for example the South Park episode released about less than three months before TBC release.

This is also one reason why WildStar (which shut down for good yesterday) had such anemic sales and retention: most players have been disabused of the notion that hardcore is something that they're going to like.

I fully agree with this, difficult games has their own niche like Nioh, Dark souls but you can't reach a big audience because the average players probably will want to play some easy pve game and if they want to play something "hard" they usually play some pvp game like CS GO or Dota 2

This is just my personal theory, but I think difficult multiplayer games makes it more niche. I enjoyed the Dark Soul games, and play most games on the hardest difficulty I can. I don't do the same for WoW mostly due to having to get a group of competent people together, whereas in Dark Souls I can play any time I want with no set up.

[Deficineiron]

WoW was still pretty new (for a MMO) then and plenty of people were willing to try it out, but the truth is people were quitting as far back as vanilla. The various TV references also helped get more exposure, for example the South Park episode released about less than three months before TBC release.


This is just my personal theory, but I think difficult multiplayer games makes it more niche. I enjoyed the Dark Soul games, and play most games on the hardest difficulty I can. I don't do the same for WoW mostly due to having to get a group of competent people together, whereas in Dark Souls I can play any time I want with no set up.

I think in describing yourself you describe what 20 years ago was a common element in the gamer market - most of the games were not easy, and many required a great deal of effort/time/thinking (wizardry required thinking, for example). Also, computer ownership wasn't nearly as common as now.

There are still gamers that would prefer a hard game. What has changed is games are geared towards a much larger target population than gamers now. No major company is going to pass up the big money. (this is also why I don't think classic will get released without significant stealth nerfing, even if it is just stuff like the health/mana regen in the demo [yes yes I know 'it was only a demo'])

also, early on, you had to set up games on local networks, and by definition they could tune higher because you likely knew the person playing with, could communicate, etc. etc. etc. aside from the tech-literate selection reasons above (if you could get your ipx network to work correctly with the game you were way ahead of the curve, at least on some of them) early mmo's were a middle ground (grouping with folks you would see over and over and sort out who to avoid, maybe) and today random grouping with folks you never see again takes an entire level of coordination out of content.

[Osmeric]

Deficineiron:

Another thing I've been pondering is fun vs. importance.

A fun based game is one you play because the actions and mechanics are inherently enjoyable, as is the process of acquiring skill. The actual consequences of play are irrelevant.

MMOs depart from this. The satisfaction in an MMO is that of doing things that are important (or, at least, have the illusion of importance.) The actual gameplay may have little or no fun.

The danger for an MMO is not that it stops being fun, but that it stops mattering. Consequence-based reward fails either when the player cannot achieve the goal (so their actions ended up not being important) or when the illusion that the actions in the game are important itself fails. And, of course, it IS an illusion - it's just a game after all.

I think some of those complaining about casualization are really complaining that the illusion of consequence is failing for them, and they blame casualization for that (because the alternative, that the illusion can and does just fall apart on its own, is too grim.)

[Deficineiron]

Deficineiron:

Another thing I've been pondering is fun vs. importance.

A fun based game is one you play because the actions and mechanics are inherently enjoyable, as is the process of acquiring skill. The actual consequences of play are irrelevant.

MMOs depart from this. The satisfaction in an MMO is that of doing things that are important (or, at least, have the illusion of importance.) The actual gameplay may have little or no fun.

The danger for an MMO is not that it stops being fun, but that stops mattering. Consequence-based reward fails either when the player cannot achieve the goal (so their actions ended up not being important) or when the illusion that the actions in the game are important itself fails. And, of course, it IS an illusion - it's just a game after all.

I think some of those complaining about casualization are really complaining that the illusion of consequence is failing for them, and they blame casualization for that (because the alternative, that the illusion can and does just fall apart on its own, is too grim.)

I may reply more to this later.

test case - coin-op tempest

enjoy getting better, real-time reaction challenges, new levels/mechanics, higher starting level

test case - pc civ or civ2
turnbased. fun is? using actions/mechanics to succeed in in-game goals. for me stops being fun late game, just bogs down, too much doing minutae and too little reward/progress

RTS war3 - fun is getting and learning to use new units/structures/races. story provides limited extra interest. gets old when tasks become repetitive with no new units/gizmos/whatevers involved.

mmo - right, with my view that the whole framework is an illusion, to use your term. casualization in some cases has meant either content trivialized or gearing process made to seem less important/too easy to where it shatters the illusion - but it is not just the players complaining who are under the immersion illusion. all players are to some degree or other..so yes casualization elements have broken the illusion for some players, but that doesn't necessarily discount that the elements complained about did in fact contribute to changes in how some players enjoyed the game/illusion.

also I think the mmo model you suggests fails in certain areas - I did an awful lot of bg's (800 or so) in late wotlk and early cat., that was all I did besides gear the characters (= work not fun), and I found WSG to be very, very fun. doing well personally at objectives was much more important than whether the bg won or lost or whatever. there are likely other niche players who treat the MMO more like a single-player challenge. the illusion-shatterer for me, at that time, was bg bots.

[Triceron]

just look at all the lizzard games. they are all stagnating or dying. there is nothing hot going on at blizzard. most talented people also left the studio. the motivation thing makes sense.

Read between the lines.

Things are low now because all their top talent are in incubator projects that are developing big new games for the next decade. They're setting up for the future, which is why we're in a slump this year.

Remember how Kaplan left WoW and was out of the picture for years? And WoW started to suffer and no new games came out and people said Blizzard was dead? And Hearthstone was announced people said it was a baby version of MTG? And Project Titan got cancelled before it was even announced?

Then Kaplan came out on stage with a scruffy beard, and Overwatch changed everything.

That's what they're working on right now. Multiple projects, all aimed at becoming the next big IP or major sequel. That shit takes time.

https://www.gameinformer.com/index.p...works-for-some

[Psygon]

test case - pc civ or civ2
turnbased. fun is? using actions/mechanics to succeed in in-game goals. for me stops being fun late game, just bogs down, too much doing and too little reward

Civ2 lacked a good, enjoyable, repeatable End game, kind of like current WoW.

That was, until I added my own End Game. All it took was to continue scaling armored land, sea and air vehicles up to "Mech" levels. I added some Mechs that could fight, fly, etc like the Grasshopper, Valkrye and Titan models.

At that point, nukes no longer became an issue, since I also had the technology to clean up radiation.

The End game modification extended wars sometimes as Mechs battled it out! Tanks and jets helped with clean up. Foreign cities would station one or two mechs for great defense (unless 5 enemy mechs invaded of course).

WoW needs the same thing: someone at Blizzard who actually enjoys the game and can scale the current systems into something fun to play.

[Deleted]

you know its a massive multiplayer online game? I don't want to be rude or so, but what you are looking for is a single player rpg, not an mmo like wow. Maybe you're just used to play wow, but the things you want is not the game you play

I think he is looking for a mmo where you aren't held back because the game is an anti social mess.

[Deleted]

Hes dropped another video talking about the emails hes received from Blizzard employees...

(I dont think this has been posted yet)

[Tyris Flare]

Then Kaplan came out on stage with a scruffy beard, and Overwatch changed everything.

https://www.gameinformer.com/index.p...works-for-some

Obviously OW made a ton of money but it is nowhere near the king on Twitch or anything, and they've been hemorrhaging money from certain e-sports stuff like almost everyone else.

They are not kings on the totem pole anymore and people need to accept that.

[Triceron]

Obviously OW made a ton of money but it is nowhere near the king on Twitch or anything, and they've been hemorrhaging money from certain e-sports stuff like almost everyone else.

They are not kings on the totem pole anymore and people need to accept that.

Yeah but not being the top of the top is not suggestive of low morale